Nobody knows yet if the crash involved Autopilot. Why didn't the NY Times at least say "possibly" involving Autopilot? This isn't a tabloid!

The byline has three separate authors. If you read the story the opening line simply says the crash was of a Tesla "equipped" with Autopilot. Yet the headline itself says the crash "involved" Autopilot. The NY Times is supposed to at least pretend to be factually accurate.

Tesla's counterclaim that they have no data yet which says Autopilot was activated is buried 10 paragraphs into the story!

Publications are not there to tell the boring truth but to come up with headlines and stories and ways to tell stories that gets people interested. AP is a new thing so of course the press likes to play it. Just like the press made a big deal out of a Tesla getting in a crash. The first few Teslas that crashed made it to the news, now there are so many, it's not a story any more. Same will happen with AP related accidents. There will be more of these headlines before it's not a story any more.

Even though most of us know that quotes equate to "the opposite of", I'm afraid that subtlety is missed by most.
Should we call them "self-professed journalists" "alleged journalists" or something else?
Perhaps we could sue the academic organizations who claim to have conferred degrees on these bloviaters for false advertising, fraud and the decline of the US?
And Broder wasn't even one of the authors... NYT must have quite a stable of journalistic pretenders...

Publications are not there to tell the boring truth but to come up with headlines and stories and ways to tell stories that gets people interested. AP is a new thing so of course the press likes to play it. Just like the press made a big deal out of a Tesla getting in a crash. The first few Teslas that crashed made it to the news, now there are so many, it's not a story any more. Same will happen with AP related accidents. There will be more of these headlines before it's not a story any more.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right. But when the first Tesla crashed, the company was not yet seen as a threat to the established order - the stakes are much higher now.

Nobody knows yet if the crash involved Autopilot. Why didn't the NY Times at least say "possibly" involving Autopilot? This isn't a tabloid!

The byline has three separate authors. If you read the story the opening line simply says the crash was of a Tesla "equipped" with Autopilot. Yet the headline itself says the crash "involved" Autopilot. The NY Times is supposed to at least pretend to be factually accurate.

Tesla's counterclaim that they have no data yet which says Autopilot was activated is buried 10 paragraphs into the story!

The article also mentions that the Pennsylvania driver's lawyers plan to "release a statement" shortly. He's gonna get his 15 minutes and as much $ as possible I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Regrettably the standards of journalism have fallen into the sewer and the NY Times is no exception. I've been a lifelong subscriber so I've been watching the collapsing quality of reporting at the Times for quite some time. If it keeps up I'll just cancel the subscription.

Nobody knows yet if the crash involved Autopilot. Why didn't the NY Times at least say "possibly" involving Autopilot? This isn't a tabloid!

Click to expand...

Agreed. However, please keep in mind that typically the journalists who write articles do not write the articles titles (the "headline"). Newspapers have people who specialize in writing attention-grabbing headlines. I deeply dislike that practice. But it is the way things are done.

Here is the opening paragraph of the article, which arguably is mostly accurate, quote:

"The nation’s top auto safety regulator said on Wednesday that it had begun an investigation of a second crash involving a Tesla Motors car equipped with Autopilot technology, a system designed to let vehicles drive themselves for brief periods."

The inaccurate part is that there have been more than two crashes in AP-equipped Teslas. Which of course is no surprise, there are tens of thousands of such cars! The important questions are; how many of those crashes have been when AP is active and of those, how many have been ascertained to have been caused by AP malfunctioning as opposed to the driver not being alert and taking over control appropriately.

Here is the opening paragraph of the article, which arguably is mostly accurate, quote:

"The nation’s top auto safety regulator said on Wednesday that it had begun an investigation of a second crash involving a Tesla Motors car equipped with Autopilot technology, a system designed to let vehicles drive themselves for brief periods."

Click to expand...

Accurate except for that little, tiny detail. Which of course has no relevancy to the story's point, right?

That could backfire. Making too many enemies in the press will not be helpful and the general public will think you are petty.

Click to expand...

What I mean is that by publicisizing all of the stuff that is reported correctly, and clarifying how it's blatantly obvious that it's incorrect, it would show others that the journalists have no ability to get their facts straight.

Accurate except for that little, tiny detail. Which of course has no relevancy to the story's point, right?

Click to expand...

I would say the statement "...with Autopilot technology, a system designed to let vehicles drive themselves for brief periods" is basically correct. Under certain conditions, a Tesla on AP can "drive itself".

I know this is going to upset some, but based on the negative experiences that some here have shared on this forum with autopilot (car drifting to another lane etc) the story does not surprise me.

For the record I am referring to experiences shared by some members of this forum prior to the disclosure of the fatal crash last week.

Not saying that NYT is phrasing the story correctly, or that the driver was paying attention, but it does seem plausible that autopilot was indeed active when this happened. Again not based on my very limited experience, but on the experiences shared by several on this forum.

I would say the statement "...with Autopilot technology, a system designed to let vehicles drive themselves for brief periods" is basically correct. Under certain conditions, a Tesla on AP can "drive itself".

Click to expand...

Right, I understand and agree with your point--my point was just that the "drive itself" phrase is really the whole crux of this debate in the first place, and explains why the media, the public, and apparently even owners have a misconception about the system.

I was being a little bit pedantic in order to point out the problem with people's perception (not your perception) of the technology.

I would say the statement "...with Autopilot technology, a system designed to let vehicles drive themselves for brief periods" is basically correct. Under certain conditions, a Tesla on AP can "drive itself".

Click to expand...

And I would disagree. It depends on your definition of "drive". If the definition of drive is "control speed and steering", yes. If the definition of drive includes "avoid unexpected circumstances and accidents", no. Drawing the analogy to autopilots in airplanes, no-one has ever expected an autopilot to deal with an engine failure in flight.